…pays fitting tribute to Murray, says his contributions missed this year
Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh said that the Opposition was rambling and incoherent in presentations during the 2011  budget debate, which concluded last night, and that this is indicative of the state of affairs in their individual parties.
Further, the minister debunked the notion of this being an elections budget and used what he described as the contradictory  stance of the Opposition, who, on the one hand, says that the budget is doling out goodies to befriend the electorate,  while on the other, says it offers nothing for anyone.
The minister also slammed Leader of the Opposition Robert Corbin’s statements that corruption is pervasive within  Government. Dr. Singh said that once the evidence is presented, corruption would be dealt with condignly, since Government  has a zero tolerance where this is concerned.
Corbin, the penultimate speaker, preceded Minister Singh. In his presentation, he mainly raised concerns about lack of  budget consultations, renewed his claims about this being an elections budget, assessed the performance of the economy and  various sectors and spoke about corruption.
Further, Corbin said that Government’s unwillingness to accept criticisms and proposals would continue to undermine efforts  to building cohesion and taking Guyana forward.
“It gives me no pleasure to speak on the budget,” he said. “Apart from exposing its weaknesses, [the budget] has no impact  on this administration in terms of involving the opposition,” he said.
“The issue is not whether corruption exists, but whether you are willing to stamp it out,” he said.
Further, he said the PNCR has reason to doubt the absorptive capacity of the country to spend the monies allocated in the  budget despite “the Minister’s boasts.”
He recalled that at the opening in the Ninth Parliament in 2006, President Bharrat Jagdeo announced that the hallmark of  this period would be consultation. “What became of this promise that was to guide the future? Like other such statements,  this has turned out to be just rhetoric,” he said.
At this point, a blackout engulfed the House.
“Whether Government likes it or not, the fact is that this is an elections year. This budget debate has been cleverly used  to speak of the achievements of the Government. I am at a loss to know why every speaker went out of his or her way to say  that it is not an elections budget. The constant quoting from their manifesto confirms what we know,” the Leader of the  Opposition said.
He argued that it is not about the quantum of money but the manner in which it is expended, adding that placing allocations  in places once neglected is a way of hoodwinking the public.
The Leader of the Opposition said that if the Government were serious then there would have been consultation on the  budget, particularly with the parties in the National Assembly.
Corbin said that the budget had a piecemeal approach to taxation without any underpinning framework. He noted that the  private sector has been fighting for the raising of the corporation tax for a long time and stated there may be very good  reason for not allowing the telephone companies access to the tax relief.
Corbin lamented that Government felt it appropriate to construct a programme for the Year of African Descent without any  input from any parliamentary party.
“The Year of Peoples of African Descent commenced because of a UN Resolution,” he said, noting that the document called for  civil society to be involved in the planning process.
“We in the PNCR do not dispute the minister’s numbers. There was growth in the country. It is not the amount of money spent  but whether there is value for money. We are happy that we have money to spend, what we want to know is whether there is  adequate stewardship of the money,” he said.

“Unless you solve the power problem in the country, any talk about smelters for alumina could not be serious,” said Corbin,  adding that he sees no evidence that Bosai is serious about long-term mining. “Just as you have regulations for gold  mining, you should look at those agreements that you have to ensure mining plans are sent to the relevant sectors,” he  said.
Speaking in response to the perceived lack of consultations in the preparation of the budget, Finance Minister Dr. Ashni  Singh said that the budget is in reality a distillation of policies, plans, programmes, projects that are generated through  ongoing strategic processes that take place in all sectors and ministries on an ongoing basis.
“To the extent that these plans find favour…congratulations are really due to all of Government as a whole,” he said.
He said, taking the presentations of the Government Members of Parliament in totality, “I believe that the compelling  vision of this PPP/C Administration and the concrete plans we have for realizing that vision, the progress we have already  made in that regard were adequately adumbrated over the course of the past six days,” he said.
The Minister said that the budget debate in the House was poorer for the absence of the late Winston Murray.
“I believe that it is fairly well known that Mr. Murray is my shadow [Minister] and I had particular engagements which saw  us collaborating closely and debating fiercely also, differing diametrically, but doing so in a manner that I believe was  characterized by the strictest of rigour. His contributions to these debates over the years were always erudite and I  missed those contributions this year. If I might say so, Mr. Speaker, with no disrespect intended to any of my colleagues  on the other side of the House, I believe that the Opposition evidently missed his contribution also,” he said.
The Minister thanked Alliance For Change Member of Parliament Raphael Trotman for his kind remarks earlier in the evening,  when he singled out the minister for customary commendation.
“…he actually acknowledged where positives existed,” the Minister said. “I will say Mr. Speaker that his example was  solitary and stood out because where he saw that things were done well he identified them, and where he thought that they  were not being done quite so well, he identified those,” said Dr. Singh.
“The striking magnanimity that he displayed was remarkably absent in the presentation made by his party colleagues who  spoke before him,” he said.
The Minister said, on the other hand, Trotman’s colleague in the AFC, Khemraj Ramjattan, used a quotation from Paul  Collier’s book “hoping to create the impression of a non-existent nexus between Guyana and the quotation that he was  reading from Collier’s book.”
He called Ramjattan’s actions “a cheap illusionist’s trick.” AFC Member Sheila Holder also earned the minister’s ire  because of her presentation in which she impugned the Government’s pension processes.
To the Opposition, Dr. Singh said, “Notwithstanding much of what you said was disagreed with and debunked by this side of  the House, I will say that I thank you for your contributions, particularly because of the manner I regard the opportunity  of the debate in the democracy. It is an occasion like few others for members of the House to outline for the nation their  assessment and their view of regional development, how they shape opportunities, the macro-economic stance by Government,  and to proffer alternative plans as an alternative government, and the policies to realize that vision.”
“We did not hear anything of the kinds of things we would in a serious debate. To those members who did make suggestions, I  will say to those members thank you, and I will [advise the members on this side of the House to listen],” he said.
The Minister said that Corbin gave an assemblage of incoherent, belligerent, opportunistic misrepresentations, instead of  offering credible arguments of what he thought should be done differently.
Referring to the trend he observed over the last days, the minister said that there is a serious contradiction in saying  that the budget is an elections budget and that it had nothing for anybody.
“This hodgepodge speaks of an opposition in disarray, no commonly agreed position, no coherent policy position,” he said.
He added it is important for the people to see and draw their own conclusions. “It is important that these responses be put  on public display. I thank members of the Opposition for disclosing their state of affairs,” he said.
“Corbin sought to insinuate that because this is an elections year, there were changes in the income tax threshold and  other measures. One would have to be a rather bold politician to make such a boldly inaccurate statement. The facts are  quite to the contrary,” the minister said.
He said that in 2008, when the threshold was last increased, “We were far away from an election in 2008.”
“We must not be dismissive of the $7,500 meant to supplement meeting the needs of persons,” he said, adding that those  persons are also assisted with water rates paid on their behalf.
“Those interventions amount to direct income support of more than $4B for 40,000 people. No machination can take away the  fact that this is an injection into the hands of the most vulnerable of society. They spend and create multipliers far more  than the $4B. It is $4B of business opportunity for the private sector,” the minister said.
On the issue of consultation, the minister said it is not an accident that the word “together” is in the budget theme.
“Mr. Speaker, this reflects a woeful lack of familiarity of the way that the budget is prepared. There was a time when the  budget was a bagful of thunderbolt and lightning. They awaited the budget with trepidation. Scud missiles…those were Dr.  Jagan’s words,” he said.”

The Minister said that Corbin conveniently chose to dismiss, disparage and treat as irrelevant the views expressed by  important stakeholders in the country when he spoke flippantly of statements that the Private Sector Commission made in  support of the budget.
The economic foundation of Guyana has never been stronger, he said, responding to Corbin’s claim that the economy is on a  less than firm foundation.
On sugar, the Minister pointed out that the difficulties of the industry are well known. “But the Leader of the Opposition  sought to suggest that our plans for the sugar sector had no involvement of stakeholders and Opposition when strategies for  the industry were being contemplated. I have cited the sugar sector as one of the finest example…more than any sector,  sugar and electricity benefit from parliamentary interventions, and of the committees. To say that there is no  inclusiveness is simply not the case,” he said.
Every aspect of budget has principles of equality, the minister said, offering to have the Opposition Leader walk with him  to see all of the roads, schools, bridges and water infrastructure. “We can go from village to village and show the work we  are doing to show that people are benefitting from it,” he said.
“Our government has zero tolerance for corruption. This is to be dealt with in the most condign manner when found and  proven,” he said. The minister noted that the very existence of an Auditor General report speaks volumes, since the  previous administration submitted none to the National Assembly for a ten-year stretch.
“It was good hearing Dr. John Austin’s explanation of why there was this decade-long gap in the tabling of the Auditor  General’s Report. It was a refreshing moment,” the minister said. During his speech last week, PNCR MP Dr. Austin explained  that the Government of the day knew it made little sense in presenting the reports, since everyone knew what was happening  and the Government did not want to fool the people.
“[When it comes to corruption] we, unlike our predecessors, don’t hide it, we make it public”, Dr. Singh said, adding that  the ultimate act of corruption had been committed against the people during the previous administration when people were  denied the right to free and fair elections.